My question was more why do you need to rebase at all? Just to squash the commits for the PR?
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Eric Johnson <erjoh...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > Just a creature of habit and that was how I learned to squash. > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:46 PM, anthony shaw <anthony.p.s...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> ok. Now I'm curious why you have to do an interactive rebase in the >> first place? That tool is kinda playing with fire unless you're >> working off a feature branch >> >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Eric Johnson >> <erjoh...@google.com.invalid> wrote: >> > No, on rebase, your commit just disappeared! >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:41 PM, anthony shaw <anthony.p.s...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> "hard time merging"? let me guess, "patch does not apply"? This is my >> >> favourite error, so much so it's like a close family member. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Eric Johnson <erjoh...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> > Yup, I kicked the can down the road. My next merge for #901 had the >> same >> >> > issue. >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Eric Johnson <erjoh...@apache.org> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Not sure if this related, but I had a hard time merging #856 in this >> >> >> morning. I was following my normal procedure using git-am, updating >> >> >> CHANGES.rst, then rebasing to squash into a single commit. Prior to >> >> rebase, >> >> >> I'd see 065d1919d8cd1e651b92af6220b1408437b07563 in my git-log. >> During >> >> >> rebase -i, I wouldn't see that commit in the list and if I proceeded >> >> with >> >> >> my squash, that commit would get dropped. >> >> >> >> >> >> So, I either made the problem worse by not rebasing and pushing two >> >> >> commits (one for #856 and one for updating changes), or I just kicked >> >> the >> >> >> can down the road. But maybe it'll be "fixed" for next committer? >> >> >> >> >> >> My git-foo isn't super strong and I'd welcome insight into how I >> >> could've >> >> >> cleaned it up with git commands. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Tomaz Muraus <to...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> I personally used all in the past (am, merge, apply-patch), >> depending >> >> on >> >> >>> the scenario of which one was easier to work with / apply (I a lot >> of >> >> >>> times >> >> >>> I also need to check out the original branch and do some merge foo >> so I >> >> >>> can >> >> >>> merge it cleanly into trunk). >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I do prefer am since it doesn't result in a merge commit which makes >> >> the >> >> >>> history look slightly nicer. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Having said that, I'm fine with whatever approach is the easier to >> >> manage >> >> >>> for the person applying the patch as long as it meets this criteria: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> - Preserve original commit author (preserve original commits as the >> >> are) >> >> >>> - Commit(s) are signed off by the person applying the changes >> >> >>> - We can easily add "Closed #PRNUMBER" or similar message to the >> >> commit(s) >> >> >>> message >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Another option also is to try "git merge --no-commit" / "git merge >> >> >>> --squash", but we need to be careful with those so we don't rewrite >> >> >>> history >> >> >>> (apache git repo actually doesn't allow pushing that, but it can >> still >> >> be >> >> >>> annoying). >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:49 PM, anthony shaw < >> >> anthony.p.s...@gmail.com> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > Hi, >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > Our PR process (applies to committers but anyone else is welcome >> to >> >> >>> > weigh in) says to download the patch file from GitHub and apply >> the >> >> >>> > patch using the `git am` command. >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > I find git am to be so fragile, typically I use the --3way flag to >> >> >>> > help it try and resolve conflicts but normally is just stumbles on >> >> the >> >> >>> > slightest issue. >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > The new process I've been using is : >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > git fetch https://github.com/<remote user>/libcloud >> >> >>> > <remote-branch>:github-<pr> >> >> >>> > git merge <github-pr> >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > .. edit merge message to included Closes #PR >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > Then push to apache trunk. >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > An obvious advantage is that in GitHub the PRs show as merged. >> >> >>> > https://github.com/apache/libcloud/pull/899 >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > The merge tool in git (instead of the patch) is so much more >> >> reliable. >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > What do people think of this approach? Here is an example - >> >> >>> > https://github.com/apache/libcloud/commit/065d1919d8cd1e651b >> >> >>> 92af6220b140 >> >> >>> > 8437b07563 >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > Ant >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
